FEATURED COMMENT: Coalitions aren’t great at getting things done

I like the idea of reform, because I’m not a fan of the current system. However, I have concerns with prop rep that nobody has been able to allay.

First, let’s say whatever the new Kamloops riding looks like votes in a Liberal and a Green. Where does the Green candidate come from? It seems that the Greens would just pick someone off a list so now we have some Green representative that doesn’t even live anywhere near Kamloops “representing us”.

Any time you’re not voting for a candidate seems undemocratic to me. Second, based on historic voting patterns, we’ll have a large Liberal contingent, a large NDP contingent, a moderate Green contingent and perhaps a small Conservative contingent (if they can beat the 5% threshold). We’re definitely going to have perpetual coalition governments.

The Liberals and NDP are on opposite sides so the coalition will always be either NDP/Green or Lib/Con/Green depending on who the Greens want to make Kings. So from here on out, the Greens will be horse trading after every election to pursue their agenda. We’ll be voting on policies and we won’t have any idea what will be enacted until the horse trading is done after each election.

This puts too much power in the Greens’ hands (and perhaps even the Conservatives) if they can get enough support. Lastly, coalitions lead to deadlocks. If they can’t agree, we get nothing. Northern Ireland is on day 626 with no government. Sweden’s parties won’t work with the Democrats which won 17% of the vote and is going on over a month with no functioning government. Australia has a new PM every 1.5 years on average.

Coalitions might be the most “fair” to all voters but they aren’t great at getting things done. At least now, I can see Mr. Stone on the street and talk issues if I want. I may not agree with everything he or the Libs do but at least he’s accessible. I don’t have some “representative” 500km away pushing policies that I have no idea if I voted for.

CHRIS WRIGHT

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

ArmchairMayor.ca is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views.
Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At ArmchairMayor.ca he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists.
This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

6 Comments on FEATURED COMMENT: Coalitions aren’t great at getting things done

So much time ,effort and money is waisted on voting the party line.coalition gov;ts can work nicely if the representatives care about the province and not about their party,Free votes are supposed to alow members to vote thier conscience. Is that a bad thing ??? If all votes in the house were free votes we would have a better result.If all votes in the house were free votes then we wouldn’t need political parties.This is the ultimate PRO REP gov’t.
This would be the ultimate in democratic gov’t and stop the election of totalitarian dictatorships.

First, let’s say whatever the new Kamloops riding looks like votes in a Liberal and a Green. Where does the Green candidate come from? It seems that the Greens would just pick someone off a list so now we have some Green representative that doesn’t even live anywhere near Kamloops “representing us”.

Sigh….If a Green candidate does not run in Kamloops, one will not just be picked by the party, and foisted on us. To be elected, a candidate needs to run in that riding. I just can’t believe that people are thinking this foolishly about ProRep.

I have read nothing that suggests this. If the quota of candidates needs to be met due to popular vote, they come from a party list. They have to represent someone so they get put in a riding. How will they be chosen and whom will they represent? If the scenario I presented is not possible, I would like to see where this is stated.

As far as “getting things done” goes…if what gets done is questionable then what’s the point?
But really, not being able to talk to “your elected representatives” because they are 500km away? Who came up with that one?
Often, after reading some of the comments I do feel some sort of dictatorships would probably be a better choice…

I am surprised that if all of Mr. Wright’s fears have a basis in fact that almost all OECD democracies have switched to some form of Pro-rep and none have ever returned to FPTP! Clearly his fears are not justified, so why should we argue with proven success?
In addition had we had Pro-rep brought in 13 years ago with a referendum vote of 58.5% we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

I see this argument a lot but I don’t think its a good one. If you implement a system which allows a large number of smaller groups to get elected, why would they ever vote to go to a system where they wouldn’t? It seems to me that once you go down this path, there is no way back.